I first read Elaine Pagels and her works on gnosticism / related materials some time ago, also listening her give a lecture (of which I remember nothing other than one person who was in the audience) in person. As a sort of prelude to a planned purchase of A New New Testament, which includes the Gospel of Thomas, I re-read Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. A review, including to a reference of a personal tragedy which she notes inspired her account, can be found here.
A bit of false advertising -- the book does discuss this early collection of sayings, but really as only part of a chapter which compares it to the Gospel of John. Pagels' theory, which seems reasonable given how the gospel takes special note of an apostle the others merely cite as one of twelve, is that John is actually a reply and rebuttal to the Gospel of Thomas (or at least the community that ultimately gave it its name). The Gospel of Thomas, or at least the parts discussed in the book (for some reason the Gospel of Thomas is not even included in an appendix -- the whole thing is only a few pages long -- which is a bit of a cheat), suggests there is a piece of the divine in each one us. There are 114 sayings in the gospel, but Beyond Belief is not a full discussion of its meaning or even possible development.*
The orthodox view is that Jesus is the only path to the divine, the Catholic Church now standing in for him. The book as a whole is a now familiar discussion on how orthodoxy developed, gnosticism losing in the process. Pagels is attracted to gnosticism largely because she sees it as more open-minded, more willing to allow for individual inspiration, difference of opinion and new insights on what the old texts mean. The movement also was elitist though, believing only some of the special knowledge (gnosis) to truly understand things. It also is known for its symbolism, hidden meanings and some opaque texts. Pagels explains how the suppression of this view was in a way more democratic. A person didn't have to be a member of the select few that understood to be saved -- s/he simply was baptized and followed the tenets of the Church. The book starts off with a pretty positive view of the charms of said institution, people willing to die for it, in part because its support for the poor and the integrity of the believers.
The mysticism that is reflected in gnosticism continued in other forms, including Sufism in Islam. I'll probably reference something involving Islam and this country's path to religious freedom (of course, not as important as corporate owners denying employees the ability to use their own compensation to make conscientious choices involving birth control ... the next big thing the Supreme Court will handle on that front) after finishing a book on the subject. Until then. [ETA: I'm finding the book a bit too detailed at the moment though the general subject matter is interesting. So, don't expect that report any time soon.]
Moving on, did look at Ronald Dworkin's (the famous legal philosopher) final book that argues that religion can exist without God. I read a summary of his position, notes of sort on a series of lectures, and appreciated the effort. Dworkin argues that our stance on life's meaning can have religious significance, also seeing religious value in nature overall. The book confuses some of this with some philosophical analysis (Dworkin often makes some good points and then tries to force the issue by arguing a narrower basis than necessary) that makes for some tedious reading. A summary of things can be found here.
Hanukkah also -- note to self that this would be a good thing to read about** -- seems to me to be ultimately about freedom of religion. The official Hebrew Scriptures ended with pagans in control -- the Persians -- but pagans who respected their freedom of worship. Greeks and Romans as a whole also honored that (if not quite in the modern form). Hanukkah celebrated a defeat over a leader who oversteps the agreed upon bounds. I discuss this framing of things (realizing there are various aspects of the story) some more here.
And, now Christmas season -- as seen by a surfeit of Christmas movies (multiple Lifetime and Hallmark channels have lots of space ... have seen a few good ones already plus old favorites) ... has begun. There already was a Good Luck Charlie / Jesse joint episode. Sort of lame. Note to others -- I do not recall the last time there was an extended stoppage of a subway train, something that used to happen a bit more. Given the size of the system, this is but one of those little wonders.
---
* One thing that excites some is that the Gospel of Thomas (though its esoteric nature alone makes it not surprising it was rejected as canonical) possibly takes us back to the first century -- which is not true of most of the works often cited as possible alternatives to canonical texts here. The Didache is also referenced, another very early work that is a sort of liturgical guide for believers. One verse-by-verse analysis.
** Update: Various online accounts suggest the meeting of the Jews and Alexander is cloaked in myth or confusion, including Josephus' account. But, the one account I read in the library summarizing that the Jews retained their ability to practice their faith obtained from the Persians when a new empire came to town until the leadership the Maccabees rebelled against changed gears still seems to be true as far as it goes. Regardless:
A bit of false advertising -- the book does discuss this early collection of sayings, but really as only part of a chapter which compares it to the Gospel of John. Pagels' theory, which seems reasonable given how the gospel takes special note of an apostle the others merely cite as one of twelve, is that John is actually a reply and rebuttal to the Gospel of Thomas (or at least the community that ultimately gave it its name). The Gospel of Thomas, or at least the parts discussed in the book (for some reason the Gospel of Thomas is not even included in an appendix -- the whole thing is only a few pages long -- which is a bit of a cheat), suggests there is a piece of the divine in each one us. There are 114 sayings in the gospel, but Beyond Belief is not a full discussion of its meaning or even possible development.*
The orthodox view is that Jesus is the only path to the divine, the Catholic Church now standing in for him. The book as a whole is a now familiar discussion on how orthodoxy developed, gnosticism losing in the process. Pagels is attracted to gnosticism largely because she sees it as more open-minded, more willing to allow for individual inspiration, difference of opinion and new insights on what the old texts mean. The movement also was elitist though, believing only some of the special knowledge (gnosis) to truly understand things. It also is known for its symbolism, hidden meanings and some opaque texts. Pagels explains how the suppression of this view was in a way more democratic. A person didn't have to be a member of the select few that understood to be saved -- s/he simply was baptized and followed the tenets of the Church. The book starts off with a pretty positive view of the charms of said institution, people willing to die for it, in part because its support for the poor and the integrity of the believers.
The mysticism that is reflected in gnosticism continued in other forms, including Sufism in Islam. I'll probably reference something involving Islam and this country's path to religious freedom (of course, not as important as corporate owners denying employees the ability to use their own compensation to make conscientious choices involving birth control ... the next big thing the Supreme Court will handle on that front) after finishing a book on the subject. Until then. [ETA: I'm finding the book a bit too detailed at the moment though the general subject matter is interesting. So, don't expect that report any time soon.]
Moving on, did look at Ronald Dworkin's (the famous legal philosopher) final book that argues that religion can exist without God. I read a summary of his position, notes of sort on a series of lectures, and appreciated the effort. Dworkin argues that our stance on life's meaning can have religious significance, also seeing religious value in nature overall. The book confuses some of this with some philosophical analysis (Dworkin often makes some good points and then tries to force the issue by arguing a narrower basis than necessary) that makes for some tedious reading. A summary of things can be found here.
that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions [Washington, 1789]Meanwhile, the holiday season has begun. Michael Dorf suggests the problematic aspects of Thanksgiving and Hanukkah (by quirk of the Jewish calendar, coming very early), but as I noted there, we need not focus on them. This is not a matter of forgetting the imperialism involved, which is part of the story. Still, a day of thanksgiving (which traditionally included appeals to humility -- that is, the very need to give thanks) and family holidays overall is not merely a day for turkey, gluttony, commercialism or even football (of course, darn Dallas won late again ... Ravens hung on in a good night game though).
Hanukkah also -- note to self that this would be a good thing to read about** -- seems to me to be ultimately about freedom of religion. The official Hebrew Scriptures ended with pagans in control -- the Persians -- but pagans who respected their freedom of worship. Greeks and Romans as a whole also honored that (if not quite in the modern form). Hanukkah celebrated a defeat over a leader who oversteps the agreed upon bounds. I discuss this framing of things (realizing there are various aspects of the story) some more here.
And, now Christmas season -- as seen by a surfeit of Christmas movies (multiple Lifetime and Hallmark channels have lots of space ... have seen a few good ones already plus old favorites) ... has begun. There already was a Good Luck Charlie / Jesse joint episode. Sort of lame. Note to others -- I do not recall the last time there was an extended stoppage of a subway train, something that used to happen a bit more. Given the size of the system, this is but one of those little wonders.
---
* One thing that excites some is that the Gospel of Thomas (though its esoteric nature alone makes it not surprising it was rejected as canonical) possibly takes us back to the first century -- which is not true of most of the works often cited as possible alternatives to canonical texts here. The Didache is also referenced, another very early work that is a sort of liturgical guide for believers. One verse-by-verse analysis.
** Update: Various online accounts suggest the meeting of the Jews and Alexander is cloaked in myth or confusion, including Josephus' account. But, the one account I read in the library summarizing that the Jews retained their ability to practice their faith obtained from the Persians when a new empire came to town until the leadership the Maccabees rebelled against changed gears still seems to be true as far as it goes. Regardless:
24 The number of details and the bulk of material can be overwhelming for anyone who wants to read an account of the events. But I have attempted to simplify it for all readers; those who read for sheer pleasure will find enjoyment and those who want to memorize the facts will not find it difficult. 26 Writing such a summary is a difficult task, demanding hard work and sleepless nights. 27 It is as difficult as preparing a banquet that people of different tastes will enjoy. But I am happy to undergo this hardship in order to please my readers. 28 I will leave the matter of details to the original author and attempt to give only a summary of the events. 29 I am not the builder of a new house who is concerned with every detail of the structure, but simply a painter whose only concern is to make the house look attractive. 30 The historian must master his subject, examine every detail, and then explain it carefully, 31 but whoever is merely writing a summary should be permitted to give a brief account without going into a detailed discussion. 32 So then, without any further comment, I will begin my story. It would be foolish to write such a long introduction that the story itself would have to be cut short.Good philosophy from 2 Maccabees.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!